Medical age estimation lacks evidentiary value against statutory provident fund records and corroborated documents; permits correction of erroneous service record entry despite time bar claims, quashing premature retirement.

JUDGMENT :

PANKAJ PUROHIT, J.

1. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner assailing the order dated 10.05.2018 passed by the learned Deputy Labour Commissioner, Haldwani, District Nainital, whereby the petitioner has been directed to correct the date of birth of the respondent in the service records as 20.11.1963 and to grant all consequential service benefits, holding that the respondent had been prematurely and unlawfully retired w.e.f. 03.06.2016. The controversy in the present petition revolves around the determination of the correct date of birth of the respondent and the legality of the order passed by the competent authority under the Certified Standing Orders governing the service conditions of the workman.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the respondent was engaged in the services of the petitioner establishment, Kichha Sugar Company Ltd., initially as a daily wage mazdoor in the year 1978 and continued in employment thereafter. At the time of his engagement, no documentary proof regarding his date of birth was available with him. In the year 1983, the petitioner got the age of the respondent assessed through a medical examination conducted at the Primary Health Centre, Kichha, and on the basis of the said assessment, his age was opined to be about 27 years as on 04.06.1983, leading the petitioner to record his date of birth as 04.06.1956 in the service records. Subsequently, in the year 1997, when the respondent was enrolled as a member of the Employees Provident Fund Scheme, Form–2 (nomination and declaration form) was filled up and submitted to the EPF authorities through the petitioner, wherein the date of birth of the respondent was specifically recorded as 20.11.1963. The respondent’s contributions towards EPF were continuously deducted thereafter. The said date of birth also found mention in other independent documents such as the Parivar Register and the Life Insurance Policy of the respondent. In April, 2016, the petitioner issued a retirement notice dated 01.04.2016 showing the date of retirement of the respondent as 03.06.2016 on the basis of the date of birth recorded in the service book as 04.06.1956. The respondent, upon noticing the said notice on the notice board, immediately objected and submitted an application requesting correction of his date of birth in accordance with the records of the Provident Fund Department as 20.11.1963. The petitioner rejected the said request vide order dated 05.05.2016 and retired the respondent from service w.e.f. 03.06.2016. Aggrieved, the respondent approached the learned Deputy Labour Commissioner by filing an application under Clause LL-6 of the Certified Standing Orders applicable to the establishment. After exchange of pleadings, consideration of documentary evidence and hearing of the parties, the learned Deputy Labour Commissioner passed the order dated 10.05.2018 directing the petitioner to correct the date of birth of the respondent as 20.11.1963 and to extend consequential benefits from the date of his premature retirement. The said order is under challenge in the present writ petition.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned Deputy Labour Commissioner has failed to appreciate the material aspects of the case and has passed the impugned order without considering the binding effect of the service records maintained by the petitioner since the year 1983. It is argued that at the time of initial engagement, the respondent had no documentary proof regarding his date of birth. Therefore, his age was scientifically assessed thr